Jump to content

Menu

BFSU in a CMish homeschool?


woolybear
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think this would definitely work for a 10 YO. Volume II was recently released for grades 3-5, but I think the author would recommend starting in Volume I and moving at an accelerated pace.

 

I am not a CMer. I love her ideas, but my personality just doesn't allow me to implement it. I do think you could make it work. It is certainly not all Nature Study, and it does have a somewhat structured ordered. However, it does encourage exploration and inquiry. The author stresses the importance of making connections between the lessons and the real world. There are recommendations for books in each of the lessons.

 

You can get a good taste of his philosophy by reading the intro on Amazon. Find the first volume on Amazon, click See Inside > First Pages.

 

There is a Yahoo Group for each volume where you can find more information. The author responds to questions there regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't big followers of CM, so please take this with a grain of salt. I think BFSU might actually work well for you. The program itself (at least book 1) is entirely discussion and experiments. You can go as deep as you want depending on your child's knowledge base and level of inquiry. I think this approach really encourages exploration and inquiry. At the back of each lesson/chapter is a list of living books that also address the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of CM but not really a follower at this point. I would say that BFSU is CM extended into the 21st Century. CM science focuses on what children can actually observe. There is so much of nature study in the CM model, because when she was around, the biological sciences were the most accessible and understood of the sciences. BFSU also focuses on what children can actually observe, but there is so much more that children can observe nowadays because there is so much more that we understand about the sciences. (So there are lessons in Chemistry, Physics and Earth/Space science, as well as Biology.) And if you join the Yahoo Group, I think that you will find that the author of BFSU very much supports the CM way of doing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It doesn't include any living books, and it isn't really a short lesson. Those are the exceptions. Otherwise, I think it is very CM - the kids do lots of observing and learning, very similar to nature study. You could possibly take narrations, make copywork, or even have them keep a journal to make it more CM.

 

I am not a follower of CM, but I really think the stuff in BFSU is excellent in building a foundation (hence the title) for understanding science methods and content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of CM but not really a follower at this point. I would say that BFSU is CM extended into the 21st Century. CM science focuses on what children can actually observe. There is so much of nature study in the CM model, because when she was around, the biological sciences were the most accessible and understood of the sciences. BFSU also focuses on what children can actually observe, but there is so much more that children can observe nowadays because there is so much more that we understand about the sciences. (So there are lessons in Chemistry, Physics and Earth/Space science, as well as Biology.) And if you join the Yahoo Group, I think that you will find that the author of BFSU very much supports the CM way of doing things.

:iagree: Well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't include any living books,

I don't agree. I don't know what you mean by "living books,"but BFSU does not rely on textbooks, and there are suggestions for related books written by a single author engagingly about a science topic. That is my understanding of what a living science book is, but you could use whatever book suits your fancy. BFSU just provides a framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree. I don't know what you mean by "living books,"but BFSU does not rely on textbooks, and there are suggestions for related books written by a single author engagingly about a science topic. That is my understanding of what a living science book is, but you could use whatever book suits your fancy. BFSU just provides a framework.

 

I guess I should have said it isn't based around living books. You only need the BFSU book and some materials to do it. There are references to books, given. I mis-spoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should have said it isn't based around living books. You only need the BFSU book and some materials to do it. There are references to books, given. I mis-spoke.

I guess everyone whose blogs I've seen, and when I was using it, supplemented so heavily WITH living books that I picture those as being part of the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess everyone whose blogs I've seen, and when I was using it, supplemented so heavily WITH living books that I picture those as being part of the program.

 

I rarely use the books recommended in BFSU. Dd just does not find them very compelling.

 

But this thread causes me to ask, How much did CM use living books for the area of science? Were such books even available in her time? I have always gotten the impression that most of CM science involved actual observation rather than living books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this thread causes me to ask, How much did CM use living books for the area of science? Were such books even available in her time? I have always gotten the impression that most of CM science involved actual observation rather than living books.

This is a good point.

 

Here is what she says in School Education, p 236-237:

 

Science.––In Science, or rather, nature study, we attach great importance to recognition, believing that the power to recognise and name a plant or stone or constellation involves classification and includes a good deal of knowledge. To know a plant by its gesture and habitat, its time and its way of flowering and fruiting; a bird by its flight and song and its times of coming and going; to know when, year after year, you may come upon the redstart and the pied fly-catcher, means a good deal of interested observation, and of, at any rate, the material for science. The children keep a dated record of what they see in their nature note-books, which are left to their own management and are not corrected. These note-books are a source of pride and joy, and are freely illustrated by drawings (brushwork) of twig, flower, insect, etc. The knowledgenecessary for these records is not given in the way of teaching. On one afternoon in the week, the children (of the Practising School) go for a 'nature walk' with their teachers. They notice for themselves, and the teacher gives a name or other information as it is asked for, and it is surprising what a range of knowledge a child of nine or ten acquires. The teachers are careful not to make these nature walks an opportunity for scientific instruction, as we wish the children's attention to be given to observation with very little direction. In this way they lay up that store of 'common information' which Huxley considered should precede science teaching; and, what is much more important, they learn to know and delight in natural objects as in the familiar faces of friends. The nature-walk should not be made the occasion to impart a sort of Tit-Bits miscellany of scientific information. The study of science should be pursued in an ordered sequence, which is not possible or desirable in a walk. It seems to me a sine quâ non of a living education that all school children of whatever grade should have one half-day in the week, throughout the year, in the fields. There are few towns where country of some sort is not accessible, and every child should have the opportunity of watching from week to week, the procession of the seasons.

 

Geography, geology, the course of the sun, the behaviour of the clouds, weather signs, all that the 'open' has to offer, are made use of in these walks; but all is incidental, easy, and things are noticed as they occur. It is probable that in most neighbourhoods there are naturalists who would be willing to give their help in the 'nature walks' of a given school.

We supplement this direct 'nature walk' byoccasional object-lessons, as, on the hairs of plants, on diversity of wings, on the sorts of matters taken up in Professor Miall's capital books; but our main dependence is on books as an adjunct to out-of-door work––Mrs. Fisher's, Mrs. Brightwen's, Professor Lloyd Morgan's, Professor Geikie's, Professors Geddes' and Thomson's (the two last for children over fourteen), etc., etc. In the books of these and some other authors the children are put in the position of the original observer of biological and other phenomena. They learn what to observe, and make discoveries for themselves, original so far as they are concerned. They are put in the right attitude of mind for scientific observations and deductions, and their keen interest is awakened. We are extremely careful not to burden the verbal memory with scientific nomenclature. Children learn of pollen, antennae, and what not, incidentally, when the thing is present and they require a name for it. The children who are curious about it, and they only, should have the opportunity of seeing with the microscope any minute wonder of structure that has come up in their reading or their walks; but a good lens is a capital and almost an indispensable companion in field work. I think there is danger in giving too prominent a place to education by Things, enormous as is its value; a certain want of atmosphere is apt to result, and a deplorable absence of a standard of comparison and of the principle of veneration. 'We are the people!' seems to be the note of an education which is not largely sustained on books as well as on things.

From her book ("]ONLINE, not the pinkish reprint), I've seen in the appendix a list of books used. For example, in Home Education,

 

Nature Lore.

(Tuesday) Buckley's Fairy Laud of Science (Stanford), pages 99-123. (Wednesday) The Sciences, by E. S. Holden (Ginn & Co., 2s. 6d., pages 1-34. Seaside and Wayside may also be used. Keep a Nature Notebook. Record, when you see them, and describe twelve birds

1 and notice all you can about them. (Saturday) Birds of the Air, by Mrs Fisher (Cassell, 6d.), pages 38-79. All members must take in The Children's Quarterly.

 

She also says p. 266 (and it continues)

Principles.—In this connection I should like to recommend The Sciences, by Mr Holden. America comes to the fore with a schoolbook after my own heart. The Sciences is a forbidding title, but since the era of Joyce's Scientific Dialogues I have met with nothing on the same lines which makes so fit an approach to the sensible and intelligent mind of a child. This is what we may call a'first-hand'book. The knowledge has of course all been acquired ; but then it has been assimilated, and Mr Holden writes freely out of his own knowledge both of his subject-matter and of his readers. The book has been thrown into the form of conversations between children—simple conversations without padding. About three hundred topics are treated of: Sand-dunes, Back-ice, Herculaneum, Dredging, Hurricanes, Echoes, the Prism, the Diving-bell, the Milky Way, and, shall I say, everything else? But the amazing skill of the author is shown in the fact that there is nothing scrappy and nothing hurried in the treatment of any topic, but each falls naturally and easily under the head of some principle which it elucidates.

 

---

So that is a vote for Buckley, Holden and others. I've found a fair number of this sort on Google Books and other collections of old books. Even stuff from the 1950s and 60s tend to be in this vein.

 

Archive.org has the School Ed volume as well.

 

Will get back to you on blogs.

Edited by stripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good point.

 

Here is what she says in School Education, p 236-237:

 

 

From her book ("]ONLINE, not the pinkish reprint), I've seen in the appendix a list of books used. For example, in Home Education,

 

Nature Lore.

(Tuesday) Buckley's Fairy Laud of Science (Stanford), pages 99-123. (Wednesday) The Sciences, by E. S. Holden (Ginn & Co., 2s. 6d., pages 1-34. Seaside and Wayside may also be used. Keep a Nature Notebook. Record, when you see them, and describe twelve birds

1 and notice all you can about them. (Saturday) Birds of the Air, by Mrs Fisher (Cassell, 6d.), pages 38-79. All members must take in The Children's Quarterly.

 

She also says p. 266 (and it continues)

Principles.—In this connection I should like to recommend The Sciences, by Mr Holden. America comes to the fore with a schoolbook after my own heart. The Sciences is a forbidding title, but since the era of Joyce's Scientific Dialogues I have met with nothing on the same lines which makes so fit an approach to the sensible and intelligent mind of a child. This is what we may call a'first-hand'book. The knowledge has of course all been acquired ; but then it has been assimilated, and Mr Holden writes freely out of his own knowledge both of his subject-matter and of his readers. The book has been thrown into the form of conversations between children—simple conversations without padding. About three hundred topics are treated of: Sand-dunes, Back-ice, Herculaneum, Dredging, Hurricanes, Echoes, the Prism, the Diving-bell, the Milky Way, and, shall I say, everything else? But the amazing skill of the author is shown in the fact that there is nothing scrappy and nothing hurried in the treatment of any topic, but each falls naturally and easily under the head of some principle which it elucidates.

 

---

So that is a vote for Buckley, Holden and others. I've found a fair number of this sort on Google Books and other collections of old books. Even stuff from the 1950s and 60s tend to be in this vein.

 

Archive.org has the School Ed volume as well.

 

Will get back to you on blogs.

 

Thanks so much for sharing this! Very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rarely use the books recommended in BFSU. Dd just does not find them very compelling.

 

But this thread causes me to ask, How much did CM use living books for the area of science? Were such books even available in her time? I have always gotten the impression that most of CM science involved actual observation rather than living books.

 

We do love using books along with BFSU and our studies wouldn't feel complete without them, but I do agree with the second part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for sharing this! Very interesting.

 

Thank you from me too stripe :). I just downloaded Holden's book from Archive.org. Checking for the others also.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holden's book and many of Arabella Buckley's books are on the Baldwin Project too (for those outside the US). Check in the Nature study and Science sections here.

 

ETA: Ooops it looks like not all of these are up there. But they do have some interesting ones there. You'll likely be able to find them online elsewhere.

Edited by stripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't include any living books, and it isn't really a short lesson. Those are the exceptions. Otherwise, I think it is very CM - the kids do lots of observing and learning, very similar to nature study. You could possibly take narrations, make copywork, or even have them keep a journal to make it more CM.

 

I am not a follower of CM, but I really think the stuff in BFSU is excellent in building a foundation (hence the title) for understanding science methods and content.

It looks like a curriculum which would lend itself to the philosophy of CM. ;)

A good book to read on CM is "For the Children's Sake" by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay.

As a sidenote this is similar to how Dh and I taught science at the primary/grammar stages.

Our family uses WTM and CM philosophies of education in the home setting, along with the students I teach outside of home.

Thank you for sharing your resource!

Edited by kalphs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holden's book and many of Arabella Buckley's books are on the Baldwin Project too (for those outside the US). Check in the Nature study and Science sections here.

 

ETA: Ooops it looks like not all of these are up there. But they do have some interesting ones there. You'll likely be able to find them online elsewhere.

 

Archive.org worked for me here in Canada :). I got Holden's book and some of the others. I did not originally find Buckley's but just found it now. Here are a couple of good downloads for Buckley's.

 

http://www.archive.org/details/fairylandofscien00buckrich

 

http://www.archive.org/details/fairylandscience00buckiala

 

The second might be a slightly clearer, better quality copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've gotten a lot of great responses already. I just wanted to say that we're also CMing and using BFSU, and it's been a great fit. We actually started BFSU last year when we were following WTM more closely, and when I started leaning (and fell over into) doing CM the BFSU material just fit beautifully.

 

One thing no one has mentioned yet is that partway through BFSU, the children are supposed to start keeping journals of nature observations. We already have our nature journals -- it's a clear fit. Almost everything Nebel suggests we watch are part of a CM style nature study. All of the lessons draw on things that the children can observe in some way, which from my reading fits CM beautifully too. Even when discussing particles, Nebel manages to flesh out the idea in a way that young children can grasp. Also, BFSU often suggests that children make booklets explaining the lesson, either in pictures or in words, whatever works. It's a written/illustrated narration, IMO, which is totally CM.

 

The other thing I would say is a connection between BFSU and CM lies in the idea CM had that it's important for us to prepare our children for the Great Lesson or Great Idea of their age. She talks about evolution as the Great Idea of her age and that the ages' great idea is important to discuss with children (not that I want this to turn into a discussion about evolution -- I'm just sharing what she talked about, see here, AO has a conservative Christian response; Nebel doesn't address it specifically). I think our world has changed dramatically, and a lot of that change has happened in science, and we are doing our children a great service in helping them to think scientifically right from the beginning. Science underpins our whole way of life. BFSU builds that scientific understanding in a way that make sense, and that draws on a child's already existing knowledge of the world. There are times in teaching it that I can feel my way of thinking is being changed into something more logical, more grounded in reality, and more appropriate to our modern, scientific society.

 

The books that Nebel suggested are often pretty good, though mostly not "living books". But I would add that his suggestions have often been better than the other books on the same topic that I've just pulled off the library shelf. They've been a helpful addition for my dd.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...